JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J.

The present petition has been filed by Sh. Bhisham Kumar one of the legal representative of deceased tenant Sh. Mange Ram, (hereinafter described as "petitioner") directed against the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Hisar on 17.10.2007 and that of learned Appellate Authority, Hisar dated 07.09.2011. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the order of eviction had been passed against the petitioner. Appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. The petitioner assailed both the orders, namely order of learned Rent Controller and judgment of learned Appellate Authority.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the respondents-Anand Dev and Om Parkash filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "Rent Act") against the present petitioner and other legal representatives of deceased tenant Mange Ram on the averments that the shop in dispute was let out to Sh. Mange Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner in or about the year 1979 on monthly rent of Rs.500/- besides house tax. Sh. Mange Ram had not paid rent w.e.f. 01.07.1997 and was in arrears of the same. The respondents required demised shop for the purpose of Dinesh Kumar son of respondent No.1 Anand Dev for running his business therein. The respondents owned 11 shops in the building in which the demised shop was existing but none of those shops were vacant and the same were occupied by different tenants. The respondents also did not own any other residential or non-residential building except the above-said building.

3. The present petitioner had filed reply to the petition contesting the same on the ground that the rate of rent was Rs.100 per month only including house tax. They had tendered the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller. It was denied that the demised shop was required for personal bone fide necessity as Dinesh Kumar was already running the grocery shop in Hisar. While controverting the averments in the petition, the dismissal of the same had been prayed for.

4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the following issues vide order dated 07.12.2000:-

"1. What is the rate of rent of the demised premises? OPA

2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground:

(a) that the tender made by the respondent on 6.6.2000 is short and invalid, if so its effect.

(b) that the petitioner needs the demised premises for his personal necessity as alleged? OPA

3. Whether the application is false and frivolous, liable to be rejected as alleged in para no.1 of the eviction application? OPR

4. Whether the petition is not verified in accordance with law, if so its effect?OPR

5. Relief."

5. In support of their case, the respondents had examined three witnesses whereas the petitioners examined four witnesses. Both of the parties also relied upon documentary evidence.

6. The ejectment petition filed by the respondents was allowed on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the respondents and the petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises within two months. The learned Rent Controller, however, had held that the respondents had failed to prove that the rent tendered by the petitioner was short or invalid. The Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Hence, the present revision petition. It will however not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of the revision petition, the respondent No.1- Anand Dev had expired and his legal representatives were brought on record.

7.